• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

they're acting like humans who are powerless and oppressed have ALWAYS acted.

They are not "oppressed". They are just extremists.
View attachment 29104

Did you research this quote?

I did.

Want to know what I found out?


She was speaking about herself and one other person, not about the entirety of the #BLM movement.



Also, being a Marxist doesn't make one an extremist, and it doesn't mean one isn't oppressed.

I give this one a D+. It's an improvement over your usual meme standards but still a pretty poor effort.
 
And bearing in mind that unless he has joined the military and they are his superior officers, he is under no obligation to obey their orders immediately and without question.
What utter nonsense! He was being arrested on a felony arrest warrant. He is not allowed to fight them off and go on his way.
 

Rioters riot. Stop clutching your pearls and acting all flustered and outraged. You're fooling nobody.

If people don't want riots, they need to choose to either fix the underlying grievances, or accept deliberate police massacres. Because the only way to stop a riot from leading to injury and destruction of property is either to massacre the participants; Or not to have a riot to begin with.

You might start to help with the latter by refraining from using riots as an opportunity to dehumanise those involved. They're not acting like animals, they're acting like humans who are powerless and oppressed have ALWAYS acted.

Its much easier to justify their killing if you dehumanize them first. Which is why Derec habitually reports on the prior misconduct of black victims of police killings, some real, some speculation, going as far as posting pictures of black teenagers posing with guns, always portraying them in the worst light possible, in order to cast them in the role of depraved and dangerous animals whose euthanasia renders a benefit to society.
 
On a side note, is everyone here comfortable with cops having less fire discipline than soldiers in the middle of a warzone? When did that become a good thing?

Oh they're disciplined alright.

On a regular basis white, gun-toting right wingers show up on the scene in the Michigan legislature or a government meeting in Idaho or a federal facility in Oregon or a ranch somewhere and despite an inordinate amount of firepower deployed with the expressed purpose of "fighting the evil government," the cops without fail go out of their way to de-escalate the situation. Semi-automatic weapons pointed directly at federal law enforcement officers by white militia folks? "Well, let's not let this get out of hand!"

Black guy pulled over for a broken tail light and he reaches for his cell phone? "Well, I thought it was a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon and I fired the entire contents of my magazine into his body mass because you just can't be too careful nowadays."

Selective fire, indeed...

White people with guns threatening violent revolution are far safer than blacks driving cars, who may have a gun, and may use their car as a weapon of mass destruction. And its not in the least racist to hold and pronounce opinions like this, while in the same breath protesting that you are not prejudiced.
 
It would help if you would address the facts.

He wasn't shot for trying to leave. He was shot for going for a weapon. Quite apart from the hypothetical gun there was the very real car itself.



Because it wasn't a felony stop situation.
But the car itself is a deadly weapon.

So if I'm walking down the street, and I see Loren driving up, I should shoot him because he obviously has a deadly weapon in hand and might be about to turn on me with it.

Only if Loren is black or brown. Because it is well know that only black and brown people use their cars as weapons.
 
People of color continued to get arrested, charged and convicted in an entirely unfair manner.
No they are not. And this certainly wasn't an unfair arrest. The guy had a valid felony warrant. The only way he was not going to jail was to fight with the police. Which he did.

Many shoots are straight up bad, regardless of how "well-behaved" the subject is.
Vast majority of shoots are good, and the suspects are definitely not "well-behaved". And do you think Blake was "well-behaved"?

Additionally, many of these cops are dealing with mental health issues for which they're not trained or effective in mitigating.
True. Not applicable here, but true.

What is a mere arrest to white people (although in many cases white people wouldn't even be arrested in the first place) is a major life hardship for many people pf color.
Major league bullshit!

A record, strangled by court fees and fines,
White people get a criminal record upon conviction, and have to pay court fees and fines. Do you think black people should be exempt from consequences of their actions just because they are black? It seems that that's what you are saying here.

an inability to pay cash bail (which should also be abolished)
That too applies to white people as well. And i acknowledge bail should be reformed (not abolished!) but some reform attempts have gone way too far.
New bail reform: Repeat offender arrested 3 times in 2 weeks

SI Live said:
A recidivist offender who was arrested three times in less than two weeks, for allegedly stealing a credit card he used for a shopping spree, evading police during a high-speed chase and smashing an MTA bus window, was released without bail on two of the three occasions after criminal justice reforms went into effect on Jan. 1.
[...]
He was charged with fourth-degree grand larceny, fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property and two counts of petit larceny and fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property.
A District Attorney spokesman said bail would have been requested if the new bail reform laws did not go into effect at the start of the new year.
Just over a week later, authorities allege that Aduba swiped a white BMW 650i, which he used to recklessly speed down a one-way residential street in Grymes Hill on Jan. 7.
[...]
For his alleged high-speed-evasion, Aduba faces a litany of charges including second-degree criminal mischief, third-degree criminal possession of stolen property and second-degree reckless endangerment, among others.
The district attorney’s spokesman said that prior to the adoption of the bail reform laws, Aduba would have been eligible for bail after his arrest, and that it would have been requested by the District Attorney’s office.
However, Aduba was let free without bail and was arrested only three days later when he allegedly smashed the window of an MTA bus with a rebar, a steel construction bar, just after midnight on Jan. 10 at the corner of Richmond Terrace and Harbor Road.
[...]
For the most recent incident, Aduba faces multiple counts of criminal mischief, criminal trespassing and trespassing, along with one count of obstructing governmental administration for fleeing.
Lawyers listed on public records as representing Aduba for the various crimes did not respond to a request for comment Monday night.
Aduba was issued $5,000 bail, cash or bond, according to court records, and is due back in Richmond County criminal court on Jan. 16.

No-bail release makes sense for low-level offenses and first offenders, but what NY did makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. It took three separate arrests to finally be able to hold Aduba, and even then the bail is laughably low compared to the crimes (it would only take $500 paid to a bail bondsman to get free).

Many aren't even committing crimes, and are practicing behavior that would involve a chuckle and a warning if these people were white.
Sure Jan!

In this example, breaking up a fight between two women. To most of these cops it's about being subject to their authority, and the smallest bit of resistance easily escalates the situation because these cops have WAY too much EGO. There's a reason so many cops end up as perpetrators of domestic violence themselves.
Are you even paying attention to the facts of the case? He was not being arrested for breaking up any fights. First of all, that is probably not even true. It seems that police were called because he was in a dwelling and was not supposed to be there, according to the 911 call. But he was really arrested because he had warrants, including a felony warrant.
Nevertheless, there were several good options available to those cops at several points throughout that confrontation.
Such as tasers and physical restraint. Both were tried, to no avail. Maybe they should have brought in a K9. Worked well when he was arrested back in 2015.
Numerous mistakes were made,
Most, if not all, made by Blake himself.

Someone that is supposedly adept at critical thinking should know better than to look at the entirety of this situation throughout our country and toss out such a simple solution at what is clearly a complex problem.
Same could be said to you.

That should be a red flag that there's more to this than "just do what the cop says".
What's wrong with that? Surely better than telling people it's ok to resist arrest because FTP and ACAB ...

It's the equivalent of saying that the cure for child poverty is for people to just not have children before they're financially established and ready to do so.
Another good piece of advice! You are on fire lately. :)

It's a childishly simple attempt at a solution to a very complex problem,
Actually, some things are simple. If he did not resist arrest, Blake would have been fine now. In jail, awaiting arraignment on felony sexual assault charges, but he'd still have his colon and the use of his legs. And if he'd wrapped his tool, he would not have to pay that much child support either. So sometimes things really are that simple.
 
Its a clusterfuck when a police officer gets harmed. But when black people get killed, it doesn't matter, because their lives don't matter. That is really what you are saying. And that is what the protests are all about. Any potential risk to the police, however small or theoretical, has to be eliminated, even if that means killing another human being. If an officer cannot tolerate even the smallest risk without killing somebody, maybe they shouldn't be a police officer. Millions of policemen all over the world continue to do their jobs every day, dealing with drunk and belligerent people, without drawing a gun and killing anyone.

It seemed to me that that he was trying to get to his car, perhaps to reassure his kids, perhaps to disengage from the confrontation. Why should we assume that his intention was to harm anybody? The only people who pose a risk to the safety of people at the scene are the police, with their guns drawn, waving them around. And they follow through by shooting a man seven times in the back. If you don't understand why someone might see this as being fucked up, you are badly broken.

Yeah. If he didn’t want to be arrested, the cops should have let him go.

Yes, because letting him go is the only option available to the police other than shooting him seven times in the back. Its nice that your life is so black and white; most people see shades of gray, and it must seem really difficult for someone who sees all these shades to understand how others navigate life. You are so blessed.
 
Reaching into the car also encompasses a range of possible outcomes. Are you trying to prove my observation true?
I think the main failure here is that with three officers pointing guns, there really are no other options on the table if he continues to not follow orders. You can't restrain someone with a gun in your hand. That he gets to his car door is problematic as he should have been restrained or the officer on the right should have covered the door.

And bearing in mind that unless he has joined the military and they are his superior officers, he is under no obligation to obey their orders immediately and without question.

They're supposed to be police, not death squads. Judge Dredd is meant to be cartoonish hyperbole, not a training manual.

Failure to obey a police order is a misdemeanor in most cases.
 
If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

Yeah, the cops tried those things. If after the cops try those things you reach into your car ....

Poor cops, they couldn't restrain him physically, and they were so scared for their lives that they preemptively shot him seven times in the back just to make sure he didn't hurt them. Real-life American heroes keeping us safe from dangerous criminals armed with cars.
 
The life of the suspect is just as valuable as the life of the officer,
But not more valuable.

and the decision to take this life should always be the last recourse, when all other options have failed. You probably agree with the spirit of this premise,
I do. I also acknowledge that shoot/no-shoot decisions are made in real time, without hindsight or ability to weigh options calmly. I also acknowledge that Blake could have not resisted arrest. He also could have given up and surrendered at any point after his initial resistance and he would not have been shot. So it's on him.

even if you choose not to apply it to situations where the life in question is that of a black man.
I don't care about his skin color. Had he been white, my opinion would have been the same. However, there would not be rioting, NBA would still be playing and there would not be rush to judgment by the governor of Wisconsin or by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.
 
Two of your sources are Faux, they have repeatedly been caught pretending it's BLM doing violence even when the facts say otherwise. The only non-Faux source you give only says "rioters", it doesn't identify them as BLM.

Who do you think they are? BLMers are the ones who have the motive to, to quote Michael Brown's mother's boyfriend, "burn this bitch down". There is no evidence that it is white supremacists or Boogaloos or anybody like that.
 
If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

Yeah, the cops tried those things. If after the cops try those things you reach into your car ....

Poor cops, they couldn't restrain him physically, and they were so scared for their lives that they preemptively shot him seven times in the back just to make sure he didn't hurt them. Real-life American heroes keeping us safe from dangerous criminals armed with cars.

Now you are being facetious. Look how much damage this fuckwit has done and he is behind the wheel of a vehicle:

DFBA5DxW0AAk0m6.jpg


I'm not advocating execution, but clearly Derec believes this maniac deserves to die. He's in a vehicle for fuck's sake!


But let's be sensible. Only shoot him 3 times in the back. There, some middle ground.
 
And bearing in mind that unless he has joined the military and they are his superior officers, he is under no obligation to obey their orders immediately and without question.

They're supposed to be police, not death squads. Judge Dredd is meant to be cartoonish hyperbole, not a training manual.

Failure to obey a police order is a misdemeanor in most cases.

So no death penalty.
 
The #BLM movement is all about valuing human life, specifically the lives of black people. It's all about having the Constitutional rights of blacks and whites equally respected.
LMAO, no. There is a big disconnect between the nice-sounding name of the movement and what the movement actually stands for.

It's about having the police Protect and Serve people of color the same way they do for whites.
How can they do that if they are abolished, as many #BLMers want? Even if they are only severely defunded, it becomes difficult for police to do their jobs.

Seriously, are you really this clueless about what the protesters are protesting? Or are you just bullshitting?

So far, it's about burning down car dealerships, looting mattress stores (and beating up a 70 year old worker there) and knocking down a Confederate dinosaur statue. Or something.
 
Show me the articles and videos in which the media present Blake as a hero.
I am referring to writeups like this one. Of course the word "hero" doesn't come up, but the tenor of these pieces is about telling us what a great guy Jacob Blake (or Rayshard Brooks or Michael Brown) is and ignoring all the facts that do not fit the "great guy" narrative like the criminal record and felony warrants.
Jacob Blake's mom says he'd be upset over the unrest in city where he came for a fresh start

CNN said:
Hours after Jacob Blake was shot Sunday, he looked at his mother in a Milwaukee hospital room, cried and told her he was sorry.
"I don't want to be a burden on anybody. I want my babies. Call my boss," Julia Jackson recalls her son telling her. She comforted him and had to redirect the conversation, Jackson told CNN's Don Lemon Tuesday night.That's just the kind of man Blake's family says he is. He's a father, a son, an uncle and a brother who's focused on his loved ones, his sister says.
"His kids are his world. But not only that, his family is his world," Zietha Blake says. "He's upset because we're hurt, we're upset. He doesn't even care about himself. He's more so worried about us."

Similar thing about Rayshard Brooks. This saccharine writeup is still one of the top hits when googling his name.
Rayshard Brooks was killed a day before he planned to celebrate his daughter's birthday

I've seen plenty that present him as a victim, so don't bother with those. Show me the ones in which he is elevated to hero status. Otherwise, my comment about your post being a ridiculous self-own stands.
I am pretty certain my example will not be to your liking. However, I don't care.
The "hero", "saint" is not literal anyway, it's just my critique of mainstream media like CNN and their tendency to portray black people shot by police in the best possible light while ignoring all their faults such as criminal records and the like.

Is that the thing in his hand, or was it "in his possession" in the sense that he had it somewhere? Because we can all see him walking away from the cops and starting to climb into his car when he was shot, so it's not like he was about to stab someone.
He could stab someone if they try to restrain him. Do you think police should have just let him go?

I agree that there will probably be more rioting, because the thing that it fueling the riots isn't a single instance of cops shooting a guy who wasn't presenting a threat. It's multiple instances of unnecessary use of force in multiple jurisdictions in a society that so devalues the lives of black people that the usual reaction to another needless death is a collective shrug.
I disagree. The thing that is fueling the riots is propaganda. The propaganda that inflates every instance of black people being billed by either police or white civilians, and at the same time ignoring the more frequent black on white murders and far more frequent black on black murders.
When Lebron said that he was "afraid", that is laughable to me. Most police shootings are justified. And far less frequent than regular murders. Lebron is far more likely to get killed by a random black guy than by police or some random white guy.

If I ask you to point out the moment it became necessary to shoot Blake, do you think you could do it?
Maybe not absolutely necessary, but at the moment he reached his car, the risk became high that he would either arm himself with a firearm or else use his knife.
The guy definitely did not want to go back to jail!
 
I am referring to writeups like this one. Of course the word "hero" doesn't come up, but the tenor of these pieces is about telling us what a great guy Jacob Blake (or Rayshard Brooks or Michael Brown) is and ignoring all the facts that do not fit the "great guy" narrative like the criminal record and felony warrants.
Jacob Blake's mom says he'd be upset over the unrest in city where he came for a fresh start

So, did you really just say, " I can prove people are calling him a 'hero', look at this, see what his mom says?"

:hysterical:
 
Maybe not absolutely necessary, but at the moment he reached his car, the risk became high that he would either arm himself with a firearm or else use his knife.
How is someone in a car with a knife endangering anyone outside of the car? But again, your argument boils down to "if I think anything can happen, open fire" - an incredibly stupid and morally bankrupt position.
 
What do you think Black Lives Matter means? What sentiment do you think the people who say that phrase are expressing?
I think the phrase is very different than the movement. The toxic movement gets an undeserved halo on account of the name phrase.
 
Back
Top Bottom